Is Arcadia South a better value than the Bluffs course?

[Jason Thurman]

I mean, everybody talks about the Bluffs being overpriced. The South is cheaper. Is it fairly priced, a bargain, or overpriced?

[Tom_Doak]

I mean, everybody talks about the Bluffs being overpriced. The South is cheaper. Is it fairly priced, a bargain, or overpriced?

You changed the question!


It's a better course than the Bluffs, and it's cheaper, so the answer to the title question is yes.


The answer to your follow up question depends on what price you're paying.  If you're at the rack rate of $160, not many would call that a bargain.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I am a big fan of the South Course. It is fun has strong shot values. The terrain is relatively mellow but has many of the Raynor features. It has a great Lion’s Mouth.
The Bluffs Course is stunning to look at but I have never been a big fan of the course. Play the South and have dinner on the deck of the Bluffs Course.

[William_G]

I am a big fan of the South Course. It is fun has strong shot values. The terrain is relatively mellow but has many of the Raynor features. It has a great Lion’s Mouth.
The Bluffs Course is stunning to look at but I have never been a big fan of the course. Play the South and have dinner on the deck of the Bluffs Course.

spot on assessment
totally agree

[Jason Thurman]

A little specific context:


I've played the Bluffs. Not really interested in returning at this time. But I'll be in the area in about a week, and had thought about checking out the South course.


I just learned on Saturday that my father-in-law will be in the area at the same time I am, staying 20 minutes from Arcadia South with a few friends. They'd love to play golf. They're definitely "retail golfers" though, and not especially avid ones at that.


The South course seems cool and cerebral, but I do wonder if it'll be too understated for "the unwashed" to feel like it justifies $160. Then again, it also looks really playable and friendly enough for an unskilled player to still really enjoy. They'll love the back deck at the Bluffs for sure though - I think dinner is a must.

[Steve Lang]

   Wait for October 3rd and you can play it for $75 more than doubling its value...

[Tommy Williamsen]

Jason, the South course is much more user friendly that the Bluffs. I think they might enjoy the course, especially if you can explain the history of some of the holes. They might not care too much about it but it might give them context.

[Adam Lawrence]

One thing that struck me about Arcadia South when I saw it was that I really hadn't seen many modern courses with so many bunkers in the direct line of play. I don't just mean centreline ones, though there are a few of those to be sure, but wing bunkers that cut quite deeply into the fairway. I came away thinking that first timers would need either a very good yardage book, or (better still) a caddie, otherwise they would find several ostensibly well-struck drives running into bunkers.

[Ronald Montesano]

Is there a piper on the South course? If not, and if you time your round at Bluffs properly, you round the 8th hole bend as the piper begins to play, you reach #9 tee as he reaches his point and plays a sorrowful call, and then you rip a seven-iron straight at the hole, only to have it veer off at the last possible second, denying once again that score of scores...hypothetically speaking.


We played the South in the AM and then the Bluffs in the PM late, back in 2018. A bunch of dimwitted tw@ts, playing uncannily slow, denied us the 18th hole. We played 17 in the dark, and once again, hypothetically speaking, an iron was ripped toward the green in the pitch black, and was found, two feet from the hole, in the same hypothetical round. Some things just aren't meant to be.


The problem with South is that it is perfect. Not a hole is out of place. It is fabulous.


The problem with Bluffs is its dissociative identity. One and two are completely different from the rest of the course. Three through Eighteen are marvelous, and the best holes at Bluffs top the best holes at South, as a result of the conspiracy of topography and gravity.

[Tim Fitz]

In my view, the Bluffs fails to meet potential for some of the same reasons that others have pointed out about Torrey Pines.  The views are spectacular, the ground movement is great, and you can play quite late in the summer while watching the sun sink low over Lake Michigan!  All things to appreciate.  That said, it seems like the course could be much better if it took advantage of the site.  The clearest example to me is the 12th hole.  It plays from south to north along the cliffs/lake.  But the layout of the green and the fairway doesn’t tempt you to take on the cliff edge.  Actually to the contrary - the cliff edge (left side of the hole) is either a giant sand trap or maintained as rough, which directs the golfer to aim to the right side of the fairway (away from all the danger).  The safe side of the fairway is then rewarded with an open look at the green that is oriented from right to left, while the player that hugged the cliff has to deal with a bunker and a narrow green.  Seems to me like a wasted opportunity to reward the player that takes on the challenge.  The hole in some ways reminds me of the 4th at Pacific Dunes, but in a Bizaro fashion, as if all the opposite architectural decisions were made.


I enjoy Arcadia Bluff.  There are some fun golf holes out there, but it just doesn’t seem to match how great it could be.

[Jason Thurman]

Tim, I saw that Arcadia has (or maybe will be adding?) a new fairway and green to 12 that plays further inland. From what I understand, they've kept the previous fairway and green in place and my guess is that only one green is in play on any given day, but I don't really know.


When I heard that, though, I assumed that they made the addition because of erosion concerns. That's just my guess, but I wonder if it explains part of why 12 doesn't play as a hole where challenging the cliff's edge is the right play - there may have been concerns that Position A would wash away!


It's funny - I guess I played the Bluffs 8 years ago now. And I came away really glad I played it. I remember paying the twilight rate post-Labor Day and feeling like we got more than our money's worth, finishing with the sun setting over Lake Michigan and the bagpipes playing, and I felt at the time like the course had taken too much flak around here to a point where we had started to collectively underrate it.


But man, 8 years later and I REALLY don't remember many of the holes. That's unusual for me - I tend to vividly remember most holes I play, especially on above average courses. I always wonder how much of my failing memory of the course is on me (I played really badly, and in between rounds at Crystal Downs and Kingsley so it was easily the course I replayed the least in my mind from the trip) and how much is on the course (due to, maybe, a lack of really compelling shots). I mean, I remember being there, and the general aesthetic, but I'd have a really hard time describing individual holes and features aside from on 2 or 3 holes.

[Jason Thurman]

An update.


I played the South yesterday with my father in law Ernest and his buddy Lou. They’re not good players. Ernest has probably only played 18 a dozen times in his life, including a round at Teeth of the Dog. Lou generally refuses to pay over $30 for golf.


They loved it. I don’t know if they “got it,” exactly, but they didn’t NOT get it.


Ernest told me on 13 that he had never played so long with one ball. Between the three of us, we never lost one. They loved that factoid.


He also stuck his approach on 8 to 3 feet. A spectacular shot on a very windy day. He missed the putt but he and Lou were scrambling and the shared birdie really thrilled them.


They couldn’t believe the firmness, the fastness, the plethora of bunkering, or the crazy movement in the greens. But they appreciated their drives rolling out, hooted each time a ball narrowly skirted a trap, and laughed when they ran right in. They felt like they played ok on a tough course, while I hacked my way through the wind and wrestled through bad angles to grind out a score. They got a real kick out of my navigating greenside bunkers. I found 6 of them, and only got two saves, but I hit 6 damn good bunker shots by my standards. Pro-tip: I managed to avoid fairway bunkers altogether, primarily by spraying driver deep into the unmowed fescue areas all day.


The course did its job. It certainly can challenge anyone when the wind blows, but also can accommodate a weaker player. And they couldn’t stop talking about it after. Back at Lou’s, they told everyone who would listen how the place was treeless and waterless but with “traps you wouldn’t believe” and “greens like hazards!” And beautiful!


These guys give zero shits about golf architecture. But they totally got a thrill out of spending an afternoon interfacing with it. So did I. I almost feel like we haven’t discussed this very compelling course nearly enough.

[Matthew Lloyd]

An update.


I played the South yesterday with my father in law Ernest and his buddy Lou. They’re not good players. Ernest has probably only played 18 a dozen times in his life, including a round at Teeth of the Dog. Lou generally refuses to pay over $30 for golf.


They loved it. I don’t know if they “got it,” exactly, but they didn’t NOT get it.


Ernest told me on 13 that he had never played so long with one ball. Between the three of us, we never lost one. They loved that factoid.


He also stuck his approach on 8 to 3 feet. A spectacular shot on a very windy day. He missed the putt but he and Lou were scrambling and the shared birdie really thrilled them.


They couldn’t believe the firmness, the fastness, the plethora of bunkering, or the crazy movement in the greens. But they appreciated their drives rolling out, hooted each time a ball narrowly skirted a trap, and laughed when they ran right in. They felt like they played ok on a tough course, while I hacked my way through the wind and wrestled through bad angles to grind out a score. They got a real kick out of my navigating greenside bunkers. I found 6 of them, and only got two saves, but I hit 6 damn good bunker shots by my standards. Pro-tip: I managed to avoid fairway bunkers altogether, primarily by spraying driver deep into the unmowed fescue areas all day.


The course did its job. It certainly can challenge anyone when the wind blows, but also can accommodate a weaker player. And they couldn’t stop talking about it after. Back at Lou’s, they told everyone who would listen how the place was treeless and waterless but with “traps you wouldn’t believe” and “greens like hazards!” And beautiful!


These guys give zero shits about golf architecture. But they totally got a thrill out of spending an afternoon interfacing with it. So did I. I almost feel like we haven’t discussed this very compelling course nearly enough.

Jason, bumping this thread because I recently had an experience that matched your own @ Arcadia South. Played with three friends who enjoy playing golf but don't pick their rounds based on any interest in the architecture, though they instinctually end up enjoying most of the courses discussed on this board when given the opportunity to play those courses.


Anyway - all three had an absolute blast at Arcadia South and given what looked like unusual design to them, they embraced it fairly quickly and had a great time. They already want to go back for several more rounds next year.


One made an interesting observation that had never occurred to me that the back nine doesn't quite maintain the same adherence to the geometric greens and bunkers at times - he was referring to the punchbowl 13th in particular I believe. I took this as a sign that the front nine was so jarring to him that a hole that looked a bit more "normal" stood out to him so much.


The same threesome had the same reaction to The Loop a few days later -- it took them a few holes to grasp the concept, but they figured it out. And while they probably didn't hold a single approach shot or chip on a green they enjoyed every hole -- and also want to return there next year.


I think I've ruined the other more routine public courses in northern Michigan for them. That was admittedly sort of my goal, as The Loop is a place I insist on playing 3-4x per summer, and Arcadia South isn't far behind.


Point being: more casual golfers not into design or architecture often reach the same general conclusions this board does, even if they can't articulate it. Like you said in your post -- they may not get it, but they don't NOT get it. Perfect way to sum it up.

[Richard Hetzel]

I played The Bluffs back in 2010, $100 at 4pm and slow play caused us to "almost" miss playing 18. The starter was really pushing people to move, which was great. I liked the views better than the course itself. It photographs well however. Last summer I went up and played the Arcadia South course, which I liked a lot more.

Now that I have played Crystal Downs very recently, I don't really care about the Bluffs or even the South. In fact, I would play Champion Hill before the Bluffs/South as well.

[Sean_A]

A little specific context:

I've played the Bluffs. Not really interested in returning at this time. But I'll be in the area in about a week, and had thought about checking out the South course.

I just learned on Saturday that my father-in-law will be in the area at the same time I am, staying 20 minutes from Arcadia South with a few friends. They'd love to play golf. They're definitely "retail golfers" though, and not especially avid ones at that.

The South course seems cool and cerebral, but I do wonder if it'll be too understated for "the unwashed" to feel like it justifies $160. Then again, it also looks really playable and friendly enough for an unskilled player to still really enjoy. They'll love the back deck at the Bluffs for sure though - I think dinner is a must.

The property may be understated, but the bunkering and greens are certainly not. I spoke to my brother who lives in Michigan. He doesn’t care for the South…too many bunkers which follow a similar theme (I agree) and crazy greens (I disagree).

If you have never seen this style of MacRaynor golf, I don’t think it’s bad value.

Ciao